The meeting notes describe a review problem but never say what the coordinator should decide. A decision memo needs to do more than collect observations. Name the choice, recommend an option and explain the trade-off well enough for someone else to challenge it.
Put the requested decision where the reader can find it before the background expands. The original fictional memo here recommends a one-guide pilot of revision-linked review notes. It compares that pilot with improving the current email process and leaves the actual decision unfilled.
Open the complete example · Download the full HTML source
Define one decision and its boundary
Use a subject line that names the choice. Identify the recipient's role, the author and the date when supplied. State what the recipient is being asked to authorize or choose, and keep implementation work separate from that decision.
Our fictional editorial team is deciding how to collect comments for one guide review. The recommendation is to pilot a shared review register after confirming a maintainer and the required access. It is not a proposal to replace every team system or discard earlier files. Actual people, dates, access arrangements and authorization remain unresolved.
Columbia's memo-writing guidance asks a writer to establish the decision sought, analyze options and support a recommended course of action. It is guidance for a particular policy class. This workplace example uses that reasoning structure without adopting the class's typography or approval form as a universal standard.
Separate the source notes from the recommendation
The teaching memo has three supplied source notes. S01 lists three review files labeled Draft-A, Draft-B and Draft-C. S02 says some comments omit the file label. S03 says no register maintainer has been assigned. These are original fictional observations, not findings from an actual team or a claim that email always causes version errors.
The recommendation is the author's judgment about those notes. A required version field in a proposed register could make that reference explicit, but the team would still need to enter and maintain it. The source notes do not prove a reduction in mistakes, a time saving or universal support for the pilot.
If you are still cleaning up feedback evidence, the business review guide shows how to distinguish source reports from copied incidents and suggestions. Finish that evidence work before writing a confident recommendation from it.
Compare credible alternatives using the same questions
Option A retains email and asks each reviewer to put the file label in the subject or comment. It requires little new setup, although the coordinator must still gather the separate replies and inspect their references.
Option B pilots a shared register with a comment, source-file version, reviewer and disposition reference for each entry. It puts the review references together, while adding a maintenance task and requiring an access arrangement that has not yet been confirmed.
Compare both against the same criteria: can a reader trace a comment to its source version, can reviewers contribute through the agreed process, and who maintains the record? The example uses a qualitative comparison. It supplies no ratings, weights or calculated winner. Use a decision matrix when actual criteria and ratings justify that additional analysis.
State the recommendation and its stopping condition
The memo recommends B for one guide review because the missing version references are the problem it aims to address. Its scope stays small so the team can inspect whether the register is usable before proposing a wider change. That is a proposed review, not a prediction of success.
The pilot depends on an assigned maintainer and confirmed access. If those conditions cannot be met, the memo identifies A as the fallback rather than quietly assuming the shared record exists. The coordinator can challenge the recommendation, ask for missing evidence or choose another course through the actual team process.
Copy this structure for your decision
Write a decision memo from the supplied records.
Decision needed, recipient role and scope: [ENTER]
Source notes with IDs and exact observations: [PASTE]
Credible alternatives and comparison criteria: [PASTE]
Recommended option and reasons: [ENTER]
Trade-offs, missing evidence and conditions: [PASTE]
Fallback and next actions if authorized: [ENTER]
Distinguish observations from the author's judgment. Compare the
alternatives against the same criteria. Do not invent benefits,
ratings, agreement, authority or completed implementation. Keep the
actual decision and date empty unless a decision record is supplied.
Return an editable memo and an optional HTML reading copy.
Use the filled Markdown memo as a worked document and the blank scaffold for your own case. A readable HTML copy in NOS can place the recommendation beside its source notes for discussion. After a real choice, preserve the actual outcome and rationale in a decision log; the recommendation itself does not establish that anyone accepted it.
Download the filled decision memo · Download the blank memo scaffold